Luke 22:35-38 (ESV) 35 And he said to them, “When I sent you out with no moneybag or knapsack or sandals, did you lack anything?” They said, “Nothing.” 36 He said to them, “But now let the one who has a moneybag take it, and likewise a knapsack. And let the one who has no sword sell his cloak and buy one. 37 For I tell you that this Scripture must be fulfilled in me: ‘And he was numbered with the transgressors.’ For what is written about me has its fulfillment.” 38 And they said, “Look, Lord, here are two swords.” And he said to them, “It is enough.”
Exodus 22:2 (ESV) 2 If a thief is found breaking in and is struck so that he dies, there shall be no bloodguilt for him,
For the Bible-believing Christian, the question of self-defense, as previously defined, must be understood as to whether it is prohibited (pacifism), or permitted under certain Biblical guidelines or principles. Certain principles regarding the sanctity of life have been explored and the relevant passages not only demonstrate that human life is sacred, but it is also legitimate to protect and defend it. But the question then is; exactly how do we protect and defend life in a self-defense scenario? Can we find passages in the Scriptures that will speak authoritatively on this subject and/or provide clear guiding principles for us to follow? What we want to establish… Is there a clear synthesis or coherent Christian view on the subject?
As we look at the Old and New Testaments we need to understand, that in the Old Testament some of the texts we will look at are part of or under the jurisdiction of the Old Covenant. Though they may establish general principles regarding God’s view of self-defense, they are not in themselves normative in governing the conduct of anyone who is not under the legal jurisdiction of the Mosaic law. But, as we will see, they can provide some clear guiding principles. In the New Testament, that is not the case. Passages in the New Testament are to be seen as normative for the New Testament believer.
Genesis 9:5-6 is the first passage that deals with the death of another human being. This passage is also pre-Mosaic Law.
Genesis 9:5-6 (ESV) 5 And for your lifeblood I will require a reckoning: from every beast I will require it and from man. From his fellow man I will require a reckoning for the life of man. 6 “Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed, for God made man in his own image.
The point of this passage is that if a man was killed, the man or beast who caused the death must pay with his/its own life. God says here, “I will require the life of man.” Killing or bloodshed was not always wrong. But when it was wrong, the penalty was ultimate. In the eyes of God, the killing of another individual is a serious thing and the illegitimate killing is an attack on the “image of God,” and recompense was required. The principle here is that life is sacred and because of that, the unjust taking of life is permitted and even required by God. It must also be seen that this passage does allude to civil government in the just taking of life. But the principle is clear, that a person who takes the life of another unjustly, is in danger of losing his own life.
In Exodus 22:2-3 we have a clear reference to self-defense under the Old Covenant.
Exodus 22:2-3 (ESV) 2 If a thief is found breaking in and is struck so that he dies, there shall be no bloodguilt for him, 3 but if the sun has risen on him, there shall be bloodguilt for him. He shall surely pay. If he has nothing, then he shall be sold for his theft.
In the passage that is before us, the thief is said to have “broken in.” The passage seems to assume an altercation in which the owner kills the invader. No statement discloses the details of the confrontation. It is enough that a home invasion has taken place and the aggressor has been killed—whether intentionally or accidentally is immaterial in this case.
In this situation the loss of life is judged to be a case of justified self-defense, provided it occurred at night. No explanation is given as to the rationale for the verdict, only that the homeowner does not have bloodguilt. The assumption may be that at night the aggressor’s intentions are not clear as to whether it is a simple robbery or that the lives of others in the household are in danger. The crime is happening at night and there is no real way in the dark to determine the intentions of the thief. In this passage we can also see that it doesn’t matter whether the thief is threatening your life or not. You have the right to protect your home, your family and your property. In the United States this often called “The Castle Doctrine.” The homeowner is well within his rights to assume a self-defense posture.
But in verse 3 the situation is completely different during the day. While it may be justified at night, there is no such provision “if the sun has risen while the thief is in the house.” Again, no specifics are given, just a general statement. The limitations of verse 3 may simply forbid killing someone caught in burglary during daylight hours, or it may forbid revenge killing (tracking down the thief and killing him later). It may also indicate that it is easier to determine the intentions of the thief in the daylight and that he had no intention of harming anyone because he had no weapon, showed no aggression, or was already exiting the home. But it is clear from the text that self-defense is permissible.
In Nehemiah 4, the Israelite’s had been sent back from captivity to rebuild Jerusalem. Nehemiah came back to Israel to rebuild the wall with letters from King Artaxerxes. It wasn’t long when they ran into opposition from Sanbalatt and Tobiah. In verse 8 they plotted to wage war against the Israelite’s, killing them and stopping the wall from being built. But Nehemiah heard of their plot sent defenders by their clans (families), armed with swords, spears, and bows for the defense of the wall. Nehemiah also appealed to them to trust the Lord while armed to protect the workers. They were there in self-defense to protect their family members who were building the wall.
Nehemiah 4:13-14 (ESV) 13 So in the lowest parts of the space behind the wall, in open places, I stationed the people by their clans, with their swords, their spears, and their bows. 14 And I looked and arose and said to the nobles and to the officials and to the rest of the people, “Do not be afraid of them. Remember the Lord, who is great and awesome, and fight for your brothers, your sons, your daughters, your wives, and your homes.”
As a further deterrent, those who were building the wall, also returned wearing their swords on their sides.
Nehemiah 4:18 (ESV) 18 And each of the builders had his sword strapped at his side while he built. The man who sounded the trumpet was beside me.
Nehemiah’s plan didn’t rely on professional soldiers. These were family members, armed to protect their workers building the wall. Under the leadership of Nehemiah, families were set for the defense of family members and the builders were armed in self-defense, both, using their own personal weapons.
Another instance of self-defense can be seen in the book of Esther. In Chapter 3, Haman, who had been promoted by the king to place comparable to a prime minister found out the Mordecai, a Jew, the uncle of now, Queen Esther, refused to bow and show reverence to Haman. In his anger he sought to hang Mordecai and exterminate all the Jews. When Mordecai told Esther of the plot she appealed to the king. Once this had become to known to King Ahasuerus, Haman was hanged, and the king allowed Esther to write and official edict that the Jews had the legal right to defend themselves.
Esther 8:11-12 (ESV) 11 saying that the king allowed the Jews who were in every city to gather and defend their lives, to destroy, to kill, and to annihilate any armed force of any people or province that might attack them, children and women included, and to plunder their goods, 12 on one day throughout all the provinces of King Ahasuerus, on the thirteenth day of the twelfth month, which is the month of Adar.
With the legal sanction to “protect their lives” using ultimate force. The Jews defended themselves.
Esther 9:1-5 (ESV) 1 Now in the twelfth month, which is the month of Adar, on the thirteenth day of the same, when the king’s command and edict were about to be carried out, on the very day when the enemies of the Jews hoped to gain the mastery over them, the reverse occurred: the Jews gained mastery over those who hated them. 2 The Jews gathered in their cities throughout all the provinces of King Ahasuerus to lay hands on those who sought their harm. And no one could stand against them, for the fear of them had fallen on all peoples. 3 All the officials of the provinces and the satraps and the governors and the royal agents also helped the Jews, for the fear of Mordecai had fallen on them. 4 For Mordecai was great in the king’s house, and his fame spread throughout all the provinces, for the man Mordecai grew more and more powerful. 5 The Jews struck all their enemies with the sword, killing and destroying them, and did as they pleased to those who hated them.
Again, these were not professional soldiers or law enforcement. These Jews were now, under the edict of the King, acting in self-defense.
In the New Testament we have one clear narrative that speaks to self-defense.
Luke 22:35-38 (ESV) 35 And he said to them, “When I sent you out with no moneybag or knapsack or sandals, did you lack anything?” They said, “Nothing.” 36 He said to them, “But now let the one who has a moneybag take it, and likewise a knapsack. And let the one who has no sword sell his cloak and buy one. 37 For I tell you that this Scripture must be fulfilled in me: ‘And he was numbered with the transgressors.’ For what is written about me has its fulfillment.” 38 And they said, “Look, Lord, here are two swords.” And he said to them, “It is enough.”
Jesus had previously sent His followers on various missions with instructions regarding what provisions and equipment they were allowed to take with them. He permitted no staff, bag, bread, money, or extra shirt (Luke 9:3). When He sent out the Seventy, He disallowed purse, bag, and sandals (Luke 10:4). These were not, however, intended as permanent, normative commands for all believers for all time. That is clear since Jesus contrasts these earlier restrictions with what would be necessary after the Crucifixion.
But in In Luke 22:35, 36, and 38 Jesus explicitly commands His followers to take the sort of provisions they were previously asked to leave at home: “He who has a money bag, let him take it, and likewise a knapsack” (vs. 36a). But now a new item is added to the list. They are told to buy a sword, even if they have to sell their cloak to do so (vs. 36b). This sword was relatively short sword which was most commonly referenced in the New Testament as an instrument for killing (e.g., Mark 14:43; Luke 21:24; Acts 12:2; 16:27; Heb. 11:37; Rev. 13:10).
When taken in the narrative, it becomes obvious our Lord was speaking of a preparedness that would follow His crucifixion. The ministries of the apostles would be fraught with dangers as they set out to evangelize the known world. Jesus emphasizes the dangers they would face in vs. 36b; “… And let the one who has no sword sell his cloak and buy one.” A cloak for travel was a necessity, but the sword for defense was deemed a greater need. Though the book of Acts records no specific incidents in which they actually used swords in self-defense, they were to be prepared. There is no doubt that the disciples knew of the dangers of traveling Roman roads. Paul alluded to that fact in 2 Corinthians 11:6, “perils of robbers.”
Also, of interest, the disciples understood what Jesus was saying and produced two swords. They were not rebuked for carrying the weapons or producing them. Our Lord’s response was “that’s enough.” It can be inferred that some of the disciples, Peter, for sure, was in the habit of carrying his sword with him, while with Jesus.
Later that night when Jesus’ disciples offered to use their swords. Peter drew his sword and took off an ear. They were rebuked by Jesus (Luke 22:49–51). The conclusion of some, is drawn, that Jesus was now forbidding self-defense. How could it be that Jesus allowed them to bring two swords and now wouldn’t allow them to use them? The answer of course, is in the narrative. By the use of the sword to prevent Jesus’ arrest they would have stood in the way of the necessity of the cross.
Then, what did Jesus mean in Matthew 26:51 when He said, “Put your sword back into its place. For all who take the sword will perish by the sword?” Jesus was fully capable of defending Himself (vs.53). Peter had acted impulsively, forgetting Jesus’ own abilities. What is at point here, is that those who are quick to resort to violence will die by violence. Peter had been unwise, thinking he was defending his Lord against aggression, yet all the while working against God’s purpose. Initiating violence is not condoned. Those who do so, risk the loss of their lives if they attack someone else similarly armed; that is the point of Jesus’ statement. Defending oneself against life-threatening aggression is not in point here.
In the last post on this subject, we will look at some implications and draw some conclusions and warnings. The goal will be to draw some application that address our contemporary American culture.
-Michael Holtzinger
Pingback: The Christian and Self-Defense Part 3 The ConclusionMen With Chests